[darawk]

> I used to not hesitate to defend my views on HN. The result: I ended up rate limited, probably because as a woman, I often have a minority viewpoint. This makes me look extremely fighty merely for being willing to engage the discussion.

You may be totally right about why that is, but just as a counterpoint, I get rate limited all the time too :). Maybe we're both fighty.

> No, I do not believe most comments here are inviting me to substantiate anything. A few are, but most actually are dismissive. That is the entire point: I am a woman with an opinion and that can't be allowed. It is a threat to the status quo.

I respectfully disagree with that view. This is a difficult question to resolve in either direction, but I think its worth pursuing. Would you mind citing one or two particular comments you find to be dismissive?

> I have blogged about how I think her gender helped create this debacle (http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/05/theranos-cul...). But, I do not know how nor understand why I need to "back up" my concern that the enormous negative press here has a potential serious downside for women generally

Firstly, thanks for the link. Secondly, I don't think you have to backup the claim that it could have negative impacts for women. I think the possibility of that happening is obvious. What does require some backup is the positive assertion that people out in the world are blaming Theranos' failure on Elizabeth Holmes' gender. Personally, I have not seen evidence of that happening, but i'd be happy to be corrected on that front.

> I also do not know how on earth to get past or around the very obvious "People are being disrespectful and dismissive of me in a way that looks like sexism at work and it looks to me like proof of the very thing that worries me and... Why am I being asked to give evidence amidst this that this exact sort of thing is a problem for women?

I don't think most people here doubt that this sort of sexism happens. And that sexism exists and is harmful to women. Obviously I can't comment on your particular work situation either except to say that i'm sorry you feel that way. But I think everyone here would be interested to see if that is indeed happening in the case of Theranos. If it is happening, that's a good thing to know and to combat. But if it's not, then it's just another failed SV startup and we can all go about our day.

[Mz]

Generally speaking, such blame occurs as subtext, not overt assertion. This is how most exclusionary, biased social stuff works. When you can't produce affirmative evidence, then you are also dismissed. And so it goes.

It is a little like arguments I have heard that black Americans who sound obviously black can't qualify for a job because they aren't articulate enough and it isn't racism. My response to that is "George W. Bush."

Maybe not hiring "inarticulate" blacks isn't racism. But why can an inarticulate white guy get a high ranking job if being articulate is so freaking critical?

There is always some excuse or justification for an overall pattern of behavior. Yet, the pattern persists and trying to point out the pattern gets dismissed for various reasons. It is a real life version of the trope Status Quo is God.

[darawk]

Hah, I just got rate limited :p. Couldn't respond for a bit.

I don't disagree with you there. Some of these things are perniciously difficult to substantiate. However, in the case you just mentioned, I think you did a decent job of substantiating it. George Bush is indeed contrary evidence to the assertion that people don't hire blacks due to inarticulateness.

Some things for sure are really difficult to substantiate though. But what is the alternative? Ultimately, to enact change, you need to convince some portion of the culture that it's the right thing to do, or that there's a problem in the first place. I think there's a lot of evidence that efforts like that have been successful over the long term in a number of different areas.

[Mz]

Alternately, you figure out how to do it differently yourself and try to minimize the inevitable blowback that actually is about resistance to change while people swear it is not. With luck, you attract allies along the way. You quietly grow it until it is the new norm.

Odds are good, you won't get credit. If you try to take credit, people will claim you are crazy, that isn't how it happened.

Sometimes, you need to decide what you want more: To make a thing happen or to get credit for making a thing happen.

Then you sit around wondering: if a tree falls in the forest surrounded by a crowd of onlookers who all vehemently deny its very existence, did it really fall? When you look again, will it be the same as it always was?